Disposed

Nanbabu Giri and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024CRLR/1386/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court considered a challenge to an order of discharge under Section 306 IPC. The petitioners argued lack of prima facie material for the charge. While noting counsel's submissions and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the High Court did not decide the merits but proceeded to issue notice to the second opposite party to file a counter affidavit before

What the court decided

AI extract

Nanbabu Giri and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75314

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1386 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Nanbabu Giri And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kailash Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur in Sessions Trial No.258 of 2023 "State vs. Nankey Giri & another', arising out of Case Crime No.487 of 2023, under Sections 306, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur and to discharge the revisionists from the charge under Section 306 I.P.C.

¶8

The foremost contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the impugned order has been passed without ascertaining, even prima facie that there is no material available on record to the come to the conclusion that even prima facie material for framing the charge for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the present revisionists.

¶9

His further submission is that in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 Cr.P.C., the ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. has to be there to lend support to the charge for the offence under Section 306 Cr.P.C., which according to learned counsel for the revisionists, is lacking in this case. The learned trial Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order without adverting to these vital legal issues which renders the impugned order unsustainable.

¶10

He has also submitted that the entire evidence collected during investigation in the form of statements of various prosecution witnesses as well as the alleged suicide note, does not reveal that even prima facie there was any act or omission on the part of the present revisionist in order to attract the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Therefore, he submits that though the scope provided under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is limited, the learned trial Court has failed to pass a reasoned order having regard to the settled legal position on the issue.

¶11

To buttress his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M. P. and another reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438, Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 and Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2010 (1) JIC 650 (SC).

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C. is very limited and only the availability of a prima facie case is to be ascertained on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and the documents collected during the process may be considered for prosecution only. Drawing the attention of this Court to the fact that the additional statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also the statements of other witnesses of fact were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., her submission is that having regard to the aforesaid statements and material available on record, learned trial Court has rightly recorded the finding of fact that there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the revisionists. Thus, she submits that the instant criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, this Court deems it appropriate to issue notice to the opposite party no.2.

¶14

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.

¶15

Steps be taken within a week.

¶16

List this case in the week commencing 27.01.2025.

¶17

Meanwhile, opposite parties may file counter affidavit.

¶18

Learned counsel for the revisionist may bring this fact to the notice of learned trial Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Mahesh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nanbabu Giri and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nanbabu Giri and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Singh @ Vijay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sumit Kumar Awasthi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another

Shyam Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Iqbal Malik vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Susheela Tripathi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another